Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. Yes, this complaint concerns more than one particular lawsuit:

In both cases, James B Stegeman was a witness to the incidents in complaint.

Court: U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Docket No.’s:

1:06-cv-2954-WSD in which I was not a party; and 1:08-cv-1971-WSD in which I

was a Co-Plaintiff. Both cases the Plaintiffs were Pro Se.

3. Evidence of Misconduct or disability:

Case 1:06-cv-2954-WSD, I was a non-party. Judge Duffey, Jr.’s Order and

Opinion (attached as Exhibit A, pg. 9) stated the following untrue statement(s):

“Plaintiff claims that Joyner’s attorney called witnesses who


falsely testified that Caffrey was abused by Plaintiff and
McDonald.”(Exhibit A, Doc. 87, pg. 9, 7/16/2007)

The statement made had been:


“The attorney spoke of Caffrey, Mavis and Lillig and
Caffrey’s nephews trying to starve her to death.” (Complaint
¶93, pg. 24 attached hereto as Exhibit B).

There was no reference made in any other documents filed with the Court about

the hearing in which the attorney who made the new Will had a discussion with

Caffrey, and McDonald was not mentioned at all.

Case 1:08-cv-1971-WSD, I was a Pro Se Co-Plaintiff. Judge Duffey, Jr. in

several documents made untruthful statements meant to discredit both the Plaintiff

and myself. The statements were uncalled for and had no truthfulness or relevance

1
to the case at bar:

(Order and Opinion attached as Exhibit C) page 2, Fn1, 2nd ¶:


“Wachovia Bank filed an action in DeKalb County
Superior Court against Plaintiffs Stegeman and McDonald
for accounting and damages…”

* The statement is incorrect see Motion for Reconsideration attached as Exhibit D,


page 3, 2nd ¶:
Wachovia Bank has never filed suit against either
Plaintiff Stegeman or Plaintiff McDonald. The case being
referenced is Superior Court case: Joyner v. Stegeman, and
vice versa No.: 02-cv-9732-8. Joyner, the County Probate
Court appointed Guardian of Property of Jean Caffrey, filed
suit against Stegeman only for accounting damages. Plaintiff
McDonald was not named in the suit.

Fn1 2nd continues on page :


“Plaintiffs refused to conclude the settlement,…Plaintiffs
Stegeman and McDonald brought a separate pro se action…
against Wachovia…”

* The statement is incorrect (Motion for Reconsideration Exhibit D pages 3-4), see
the following:
When 02-cv-9732-8 concluded, neither attorney would file the
agreement with Superior Court; Stegeman upheld his part of
the agreement and Withdrew the Caveat to the Will. The
opposing party refused to honor their part of the agreement,
that’s why the case continued. That case finally ended, by
Stegeman obtaining new counsel to file the agreement; the
new attorney conducted a legal investigation. After
completion of the investigation, Plaintiffs Stegeman and
McDonald filed a pro se action against Wachovia, No.: 06-cv-
1056-8; which Wachovia improperly removed to this District
Court; this Court remanded to Superior Court.

2
In the case, Judge Duffey, Jr. allowed perjury and use of a fraudulent/forged

land document to be used, and other state an federal law violations to continue; the

case was dismissed under Younger abstention, but in violation of rules, Judge

Duffey, Jr. continued to make decisions on evidence which only a jury should have

been allowed to make, and showed obvious bias/prejudice by siding with the

defendants:

Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants Georgia Power, Scott A. Farrow, and Brian P.

Watt’s Objection to Motion for Reconsideration (attached as Exhibit E), page 5:

“This Court has disregarded the reason Plaintiffs filed the


District Court action, spent several pages discrediting
Plaintiffs and their reputations (pgs. 2, 3, 7-12) for no good
reason. This Court then claimed to lack jurisdiction under
Younger (pgs. 16-20), disregarded Rules for when a Court
lacks jurisdiction (pg. 20:“… decision to abstain from
exercising jurisdiction…”); and addressed some of the merits
of the case, intentionally distorting the reason the case was
brought before this Court.”

Judge Duffey, Jr. Order and Opinion Exhibit C on page 13:


“…hearing was set by Judge Becker…”
“…were given notice of the deposition…”

Undisputed evidence (Motion Calendar) was provided to Judge Duffey, Jr.

that our names were not on the Calendar, provided the Docket Report showing no

“Scheduled Events”, and “Petition for Docket Correction” requesting that should

3
there be hearing actually set, that it show on the Motion Calendar and in Scheduled

Events. None of this was disputed.

Nevertheless, since the Court refused jurisdiction, Judge Duffey, Jr. had no

place making Judgment on the issues.

Furthermore, evidence had been provided that the Constitutional issues

brought before District Court, gave the District Court jurisdiction and we showed

why Younger abstention failed. The State Court did not give the arguments that

Judge Duffey, Jr. provided, in essence Judge Duffey, Jr. was acting as attorney for

the Defendants and was highly improper. The State defendants, as well as Georgia

Power defendants were represented by legal counsel with much more experience

than Pro Se Plaintiffs and it was not Judge Duffey, Jr.’s job description to make

argument for them.

Judge Duffey, Jr. repeatedly misquotes caselaw, when it is pointed out to

him, he ignores it. It is improper for attorneys, to misquotes caselaw and give it

improper meanings, but is unforgivable that a District Court Judge does so.

How can a Pro Se litigant have a fair and unbiased tribunal in front of Judge

Duffey, Jr. if he is defending the defendants?

Also, according to caselaw, Pro Se pleadings are to be read liberally, which

in front of Judge Duffey, Jr. doesn’t happen. He shows obvious bias and prejudice

against Pro Se litigants, ignoring that a prima facie case has been filed, evidence is

4
undisputed, and opposing party has committed perjury and fraud upon the Court.

Why? Because Judge Duffey, Jr. has past relationships with the Defendants in one

form or another.